RE: Smart Roadster: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
lostkiwi said:
If you're losing power as you try to pull away from a roundabout and you're in second that's simply driver error as the car has detected you have dropped below the optimum speed for second as is trying to compensate for your ineptitude.
These cars are designed to be fool proof for as many people as possible. They change up at redline, change down when the electronics thinks the road speed is too low for the selected gear. Understand that and learn what its programming is and adapt your driving to suit.
Sounds like a right pain the ar5e to drive! These cars are designed to be fool proof for as many people as possible. They change up at redline, change down when the electronics thinks the road speed is too low for the selected gear. Understand that and learn what its programming is and adapt your driving to suit.
300bhp/ton said:
Dave200 said:
300bhp/ton said:
Ok I was messing about with this on the way home. And yes full lock to lock is a good numbur of turns. But without knowing how far this is physically turning the front wheels, it really isn't a useful metric. I'm sure on something like a Land Rover I could wind the lock stops and take half or maybe even a whole turn out lock to lock. But all I'd have done is reduce the amount of lock, not made the steering any quicker.
No idea how this stacks up on the Roadster, but it does have a very good turning circle, even for a vehicle of its size and you don't need to use full lock in car parks. So part of me is inclined to surmise that part of the large lock to lock number is the fact it's actually turning the wheels further than some other cars, rather than being slower.
This got lost among the doldrums, but is definitely worthy of 'classic 300bhp waffle' status.No idea how this stacks up on the Roadster, but it does have a very good turning circle, even for a vehicle of its size and you don't need to use full lock in car parks. So part of me is inclined to surmise that part of the large lock to lock number is the fact it's actually turning the wheels further than some other cars, rather than being slower.
If in doubt, or unable to defend your choice of car, just make something up.
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 19th December 13:29
Accept that the gearbox (among many other aspects) make a lot of people take a very dim/negative view of the car.
You don't need to prove anyone wrong.
You don't need to enjoy 'winning' the conversation.
You don't need to have the final word.
Why is it impossible for you to accept that other people's views differ from your own?
Why do you feel the need to twist and turn the conversation around until you find something which you are 'right' about?
Why do you always make these threads all about you?
As usual, you've waded into this thread and shouted louder than anyone else. Do you actually realise you're the highest contributor to this thread? Do you actually realise you take up more than 1-in-10 posts in this thread?
Escort Si-130 said:
Trouble is, its just too slow imo. Needed a bigger engine. It just does not have enough power to back up the styling. Should have been at least near 6-7 second 0-60 from factory to be considered seriously.
A typical comment from someone who has never driven one.they are about 7.5 seconds to 58mph, but then a gearchange is enforced as it hits the rev limiter - and that wrecks the 0-60 time. Real world acceleration isn't actually any different - in-gear acceleration it can surprise a lot of far more exotic metal.
Why are people quite so het up about 0-60 times?
Splitpin2008 said:
Awful..
Crap engine 36k then needing a rebuild or replacement.
Another ridiculous comment from someone who knows nothing about the car.Crap engine 36k then needing a rebuild or replacement.
My engine is on 120,000 miles and doesn't need a rebuild.
I know of 3 that have got to around 200,000 miles before needing rebuild.
The LOWEST I have heard of a Roadster needing a rebuild is 60,000 - and that was badly looked after and improperly serviced - most get to around 130,000-150,000 miles before needing to be rebuilt.
Considering it's a 3 cylinder, high revving 700cc engine, that's pretty phenomenal resilience.
dick2ski said:
I owned a Roadster Coupe a few years back. Had I driven an MR2 Roadster first I wouldnt have bothered. The best sportscar peanuts can buy, my current Mk3 is 3 years older than any Smart and in better shape than the last. No contest.
I think this is the biggest issue against Smart ownership. At this point in my life I just cannot think of anything I would dislike more than having to chase bloody water leaks, if the SAM module failed due to something like this honestly, I'd scrap the damn thing. The other aspect is how much value is there going to be in a Smart that has covered 100k+, even the later examples must be starting to rack up the mileage? Do you have to assume that unless £1500-2000 has been recently spent that you are taking a huge risk in buying one. Not me. I have served my time messing about with leaky badly designed cars and quite honestly after a day at work making big industrial things work the last thing I want is a hobby type car for my daily driver, especially when there are cars such as the MR2 which offer a similar experience but without the headaches. Dave200 said:
I thought long and hard about it, and realised that only you could dream up such nonsense to defend your car...
Accept that the gearbox (among many other aspects) make a lot of people take a very dim/negative view of the car.
You don't need to prove anyone wrong.
You don't need to enjoy 'winning' the conversation.
You don't need to have the final word.
Why is it impossible for you to accept that other people's views differ from your own?
Why do you feel the need to twist and turn the conversation around until you find something which you are 'right' about?
Why do you always make these threads all about you?
As usual, you've waded into this thread and shouted louder than anyone else. Do you actually realise you're the highest contributor to this thread? Do you actually realise you take up more than 1-in-10 posts in this thread?
Just because many people take a dim view of something doesn't make them right. Accept that the gearbox (among many other aspects) make a lot of people take a very dim/negative view of the car.
You don't need to prove anyone wrong.
You don't need to enjoy 'winning' the conversation.
You don't need to have the final word.
Why is it impossible for you to accept that other people's views differ from your own?
Why do you feel the need to twist and turn the conversation around until you find something which you are 'right' about?
Why do you always make these threads all about you?
As usual, you've waded into this thread and shouted louder than anyone else. Do you actually realise you're the highest contributor to this thread? Do you actually realise you take up more than 1-in-10 posts in this thread?
A lot of people take a dim view of the conservatives/labour/lib dems (take your pick) but are all of them right?
I thing 300s point of view is that once you take the time and effort to learn the vehicle the gearbox is fine. Its not a DSG box (it predates that). Its not a manual box (deal with it). Its not a Quaife sequential box. It is what it is and its actually fine. If you took the time to read other Smart Roadster owners comments you may note there is a common thread - take time to learn it and it becomes no problem at all. Its also a reliable box that gives virtually no trouble (the main source of problem being the clutch and associated actuator).
There is no doubt that you dislike the Smart Roadster and will never see past your hatred of its gearbox (that you have probably never taken the time to learn to use properly). So be it. In my view thats your loss.
I'll just keep driving my Roadster and enjoying the effortless gear changes, excellent road holding and grinning.
yonex said:
The other aspect is how much value is there going to be in a Smart that has covered 100k+, even the later examples must be starting to rack up the mileage?
Not necessarily. My late 2004 car has only done 21 000 miles. It's not used as a daily driver, it's a toy. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who has a Smart for fun rather than commuting. lostkiwi said:
Dave200 said:
I thought long and hard about it, and realised that only you could dream up such nonsense to defend your car...
Accept that the gearbox (among many other aspects) make a lot of people take a very dim/negative view of the car.
You don't need to prove anyone wrong.
You don't need to enjoy 'winning' the conversation.
You don't need to have the final word.
Why is it impossible for you to accept that other people's views differ from your own?
Why do you feel the need to twist and turn the conversation around until you find something which you are 'right' about?
Why do you always make these threads all about you?
As usual, you've waded into this thread and shouted louder than anyone else. Do you actually realise you're the highest contributor to this thread? Do you actually realise you take up more than 1-in-10 posts in this thread?
Just because many people take a dim view of something doesn't make them right. Accept that the gearbox (among many other aspects) make a lot of people take a very dim/negative view of the car.
You don't need to prove anyone wrong.
You don't need to enjoy 'winning' the conversation.
You don't need to have the final word.
Why is it impossible for you to accept that other people's views differ from your own?
Why do you feel the need to twist and turn the conversation around until you find something which you are 'right' about?
Why do you always make these threads all about you?
As usual, you've waded into this thread and shouted louder than anyone else. Do you actually realise you're the highest contributor to this thread? Do you actually realise you take up more than 1-in-10 posts in this thread?
A lot of people take a dim view of the conservatives/labour/lib dems (take your pick) but are all of them right?
I thing 300s point of view is that once you take the time and effort to learn the vehicle the gearbox is fine. Its not a DSG box (it predates that). Its not a manual box (deal with it). Its not a Quaife sequential box. It is what it is and its actually fine. If you took the time to read other Smart Roadster owners comments you may note there is a common thread - take time to learn it and it becomes no problem at all. Its also a reliable box that gives virtually no trouble (the main source of problem being the clutch and associated actuator).
There is no doubt that you dislike the Smart Roadster and will never see past your hatred of its gearbox (that you have probably never taken the time to learn to use properly). So be it. In my view thats your loss.
I'll just keep driving my Roadster and enjoying the effortless gear changes, excellent road holding and grinning.
I've driven a lot of cars, and have pretty much universally hated any 'manual' autoboxes I've tried (which covers most common varieties). The box in the Smart I drove was worse than almost everything else, and was one of the reasons I told my ex to ditch it in favour of a Mk2 MX5 1.8is - a car which was better in every regard other than fuel consumption.
As someone who has had a drivers licence since 1976 I have also driven a fair number of cars. My ownership of the Smart doesn't disqualify me from making the judgement call (along with most other people that have them now or have had them for a long period in the past) that the gearbox is not as bad as you make out.
The MX5 is a nice car. A bit bland for my tastes and (in Mk1 guise) a bit prone to tin worm (we'll see how the MK2 fares there). I've owned it FWD brother the 323GT in the past and the engine is also nice enough although to my taste lacking in torque. I will however say that the manual box is actually quite nice in the MX5.
I've also owned numerous other cars (ranging from Australian muscle cars to original Mini Cooper S) and all of them have their faults. The Smart is not perfect (I have ever suggested it is) however its not as bad as the nay sayers on here would suggest (and I would hazard that most have never had much more than a brief drive).
The MX5 is a nice car. A bit bland for my tastes and (in Mk1 guise) a bit prone to tin worm (we'll see how the MK2 fares there). I've owned it FWD brother the 323GT in the past and the engine is also nice enough although to my taste lacking in torque. I will however say that the manual box is actually quite nice in the MX5.
I've also owned numerous other cars (ranging from Australian muscle cars to original Mini Cooper S) and all of them have their faults. The Smart is not perfect (I have ever suggested it is) however its not as bad as the nay sayers on here would suggest (and I would hazard that most have never had much more than a brief drive).
yonex said:
I just cannot think of anything I would dislike more than having to chase bloody water leaks, if the SAM module failed due to something like this honestly, I'd scrap the damn thing.
Why do people get so pent up about the leaks. Don't chase them. Fix them in a oner so you'll never have them the first place. Preventative maintenance. lostkiwi said:
(we'll see how the MK2 fares there).
It's not going well. http://www.mx5oc.co.uk/forum/yaf_postst46836_MK2-5...Puts some perspective on the odd water leak on a Roadster.
Dan compares the Smart with the MX-5 and the Lotus Elise and that is where Dan loses his argument, both the Mazda and the lotus look like real cars designed by adults for adults whereas the Smart looks as if it has been made out of Leggo by a 6yr old for pedalling around his back garden.
radio man said:
Dan compares the Smart with the MX-5 and the Lotus Elise and that is where Dan loses his argument, both the Mazda and the lotus look like real cars designed by adults for adults whereas the Smart looks as if it has been made out of Leggo by a 6yr old for pedalling around his back garden.
Is that *honestly* the best you can come up with?speedyK said:
I think it's good if people diss the Smart Roadster.
That means that prices stay low, so if I want to buy another to "share the wear", I won't have to pay too much
Residuals are an interesting question. They're relatively rare and a bit of an oddity which might mean prices start to strengthen, especially as fuel prices rise. That means that prices stay low, so if I want to buy another to "share the wear", I won't have to pay too much
Panayiotis said:
Living in central London at the time I thought I had found the perfect fun car...gearbox killed it for me, dealer brought the car over, I asked him to back it out of the driveway and it stalled twice....maybe not.
I wonder, would it be possible to convert it with a motorcycle engine?
Certainly possible, but they are a bit too heavy to make best use of a bike engine IMO. Besides performance, the clutch and gearboxes on bike engines take a real beating when moving a heavy car around.I wonder, would it be possible to convert it with a motorcycle engine?
A manual conversion for the existing box would be great, but having looked at the design it would be far from easy to 'manualise' the gearbox though the clutch would be relatively trivial. You'd also have to sort out the powertrain management issues.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff